Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. vs. Court of Appeals

The 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court is mandatory and non-extendible following the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC which deleted the provision previously allowing extensions for compelling reasons; motions for extension filed after the expiration of the reglementary period are ineffective and render the subsequent petition a nullity, particularly where the excuse offered is merely the "heavy workload" of counsel and the judgment sought to be assailed has already become final and executory.

Guillermo M. Mendigorin was employed by Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc.) and Oceanic Navigation Ltd. for 27 years as an oiler and later as second engineer. During the term of his employment contract executed in September 2004, he was diagnosed with colon cancer and subsequently died. His widow, Amanda C. Mendigorin, filed a complaint for death benefits, unpaid salaries, sickness allowance, medical expenses, damages, and attorney's fees before the Labor Arbiter.

• The Employment and Death: Guillermo M. Mendigorin served as an oiler and subsequently second engineer for Thenamaris Philippines, Inc. (formerly Intermare Maritime Agencies, Inc.) and Oceanic Navigation Ltd. for 27 years. He was deployed under an employment contract executed on September 20, 2004. During the contract term, he developed colon cancer and died.

• Labor Arbiter Proceedings: Amanda C. Mendigorin, Guillermo's widow, instituted a complaint for death benefits, unpaid salaries, sickness allowance, refund of medical expenses, moral and exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. On January 29, 2008, the Labor Arbiter rendered judgment in favor of the widow, awarding US$50,000.00 in death benefits, ₱102,759.74 in medical expenses, ₱100,000.00 moral damages, ₱50,000.00 exemplary damages, and 10% attorney's fees.

• NLRC Reversal: Petitioners appealed to the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC). In a Decision dated March 31, 2009, the NLRC reversed the Labor Arbiter, applying the 2000 POEA Standard Employment Contract (SEC) rather than the 1996 version. The 2000 POEA SEC requires that death be work-related. Finding that colon cancer is not listed as an occupational disease and that the widow failed to prove that working conditions increased the risk of contracting the disease or that the cause of death was reasonably connected with the deceased's work, the NLRC denied the death benefits claim. The award of damages and attorney's fees was likewise disallowed.

• Motion for Reconsideration: The widow moved for reconsideration. The NLRC denied this via Resolution dated June 29, 2009, which was received by counsel on July 8, 2009.

• Attempted Appeal to CA: Sixty-two days after receipt of the NLRC Resolution, or on September 8, 2009, counsel for the widow filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Certiorari before the Court of Appeals, alleging that counsel was saddled with equally important cases and could not prepare the voluminous documents necessary within the remaining time. The motion sought 15 days from September 7, 2009 (the computed deadline, as September 6, 2009 fell on a Sunday). On September 22, 2009, the widow filed her Petition for Certiorari.

• CA Proceedings: The CA, in a Resolution dated November 20, 2009, noted that the petition was filed 15 days late and suffered from procedural infirmities (defective verification and lack of pertinent pleadings). Nonetheless, invoking "substantial justice," the CA entertained the petition and directed the widow to cure the deficiencies. Petitioners filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Dismiss, arguing that the motion for extension was a prohibited pleading and the petition was filed out of time. In a Resolution dated February 10, 2010, the CA denied the motion and granted the widow one last opportunity to submit the lacking pleadings.

• Finality of NLRC Judgment: Entry of Judgment was issued by the NLRC on August 13, 2009, recording that the June 29, 2009 Resolution became final and executory on July 18, 2009.

• Prohibited Motion for Extension: Petitioners maintained that under A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, which amended Section 4 of Rule 65, the 60-day period for filing a petition for certiorari is non-extendible, rendering the motion for extension an absolutely prohibited pleading. Citing Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, petitioners argued that the deletion of the provision allowing extensions in the amended rule manifested an intent to prohibit such motions entirely.

• Untimely Filing: Petitioners argued that even assuming extensions were permissible, the motion for extension was filed on September 8, 2009, beyond the 60-day period which expired on September 7, 2009 (or September 6, 2009, the last working day). Consequently, the Petition for Certiorari filed on September 22, 2009 was a mere scrap of paper with no remedial value.

• Finality of Judgment: Petitioners asserted that the NLRC Resolution having become final and executory, the CA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition except to order its dismissal.

• Substantial Justice: Respondent countered that the CA correctly applied the principle of substantial justice in relaxing the strict application of procedural rules, noting that the petition was filed only 15 days late and that the widow should be given the opportunity to fully ventilate her claims on the merits.

• Excusable Delay: Respondent argued that the delay was excusable due to the heavy workload of counsel and the voluminous nature of the records requiring preparation, constituting sufficient reason to warrant liberality in the application of the rules.

• Timeliness of Filing: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in entertaining a Petition for Certiorari filed beyond the mandatory 60-day period under Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court.

• Validity of Extension: Whether the Court of Appeals committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing a motion for extension of time to file a petition for certiorari despite the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC deleting the provision for such extensions.

• Timeliness of Filing: The CA committed grave abuse of discretion. The motion for extension was filed on September 8, 2009, one day after the expiration of the 60-day period counted from July 8, 2009 (the date of receipt of the NLRC Resolution). A motion for extension filed after the reglementary period has expired is ineffective because there is no longer any period to extend; the assailed judgment having become final and executory on July 18, 2009, the CA lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

• Validity of Extension: The CA committed grave abuse of discretion in allowing the motion for extension. While Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan recognized that the deletion of the extension provision in Rule 65 did not absolutely prohibit motions for extension, such liberality is subject to the court's sound discretion and requires compelling reasons. The excuse of "heavy workload" is relative, self-serving, and insufficient to justify deviation from the 60-day rule. Furthermore, the petition suffered from multiple procedural infirmities, and the widow failed to fully comply with the CA's directives to cure these defects, demonstrating a propensity to disregard procedural rules that precludes the application of substantial justice.

• Mandatory 60-Day Rule for Certiorari: Under Section 4 of Rule 65 as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of the judgment or resolution, or from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration. The amendment deleted the former provision allowing extensions of time for compelling reasons, establishing a general rule that the period is non-extendible.

• Exceptions to Strict Observance: In Labao v. Flores, the Court enumerated exceptions to strict procedural compliance: (1) most persuasive and weighty reasons; (2) injustice not commensurate with failure to comply; (3) good faith and immediate payment within reasonable time; (4) special or compelling circumstances; (5) merits of the case; (6) cause not entirely attributable to fault or negligence; (7) lack of showing that review is frivolous and dilatory; (8) no unjust prejudice to other party; (9) fraud, accident, mistake or excusable negligence; (10) peculiar legal and equitable circumstances; (11) substantial justice and fair play; (12) importance of issues; and (13) sound discretion guided by attendant circumstances. The party invoking liberality must advance a reasonable or meritorious explanation for the failure to comply.

• Effect of Late Motion for Extension: A motion for extension of time must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended; otherwise, it is of no effect as there is no longer any period to extend, and the judgment becomes final and executory.

• Finality of Judgments: A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect. All issues between the parties are deemed resolved, and execution proceeds as a matter of right. A denial of a petition for being time-barred is tantamount to a decision on the merits.

• "The general rule, as laid down in Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, is that a petition for certiorari must be filed strictly within 60 days from notice of judgment or from the order denying a motion for reconsideration. This is in accordance with the amendment introduced by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC where no provision for the filing of a motion for extension to file a petition for certiorari exists..."

• "It is a fundamental rule of remedial law that a motion for extension of time must be filed before the expiration of the period sought to be extended; otherwise, the same is of no effect since there would no longer be any period to extend, and the assailed judgment or order will have become final and executory."

• "Time and again, we have held that the excuse of 'heavy workload is relative and often self-serving. Standing alone, it is not a sufficient reason to deviate from the 60-day rule.'"

• "A decision that has acquired finality becomes immutable and unalterable and may no longer be modified in any respect, even if the modification is meant to correct erroneous conclusions of fact or law and whether it will be made by the court that rendered it or by the highest court of the land."

• Laguna Metts Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 185220, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 139 — Controlling precedent establishing that A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC removed the provision allowing extensions of time to file petitions for certiorari, rendering the 60-day period non-extendible; followed and applied.

• Republic v. St. Vincent de Paul Colleges, Inc., G.R. No. 192908, August 22, 2012, 678 SCRA 738 — Cited for reconciling seemingly conflicting jurisprudence on whether the 60-day period may be extended; recognized the general rule of strict compliance and the exceptional circumstances where extension may be allowed.

• Domdom v. Third and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 182382-83, February 24, 2010, 613 SCRA 528 — Cited for the holding that the deletion of the extension provision in Rule 65 did not absolutely prohibit motions for extension, which remain subject to the court's sound discretion in exceptional cases; distinguished or limited by the facts of the present case.

• Labao v. Flores, G.R. No. 187984, November 15, 2010, 634 SCRA 723 — Cited for the enumeration of exceptions to strict procedural compliance and the requirement that parties invoking liberality must satisfactorily explain their failure to abide by the rules; applied to determine that the "heavy workload" excuse was insufficient.

• Section 4, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC — Mandates that the petition shall be filed not later than sixty (60) days from notice of the judgment or resolution, or from notice of the denial of a motion for reconsideration; the amendment deleted the former provision allowing extensions of time for compelling reasons.

• Section 12, Rule II of the 2004 Rules of Notarial Practice — Referenced regarding the requirement for verification/certification of non-forum shopping (Community Tax Certificates no longer competent evidence of identity).

Antonio T. Carpio (Chairperson), Arturo D. Brion, Jose Portugal Perez, Estela M. Perlas-Bernabe